JUDGMENT : P.B.Suresh Kumar, J. Among these appeals, W.A.No.274 of 2022 arises from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.16743 of 2021 and W.A.No.271 of 2022 arises from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.25585 of 2021. In both the appeals, the official respondents in the writ petitions are the appellants. As the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment, the writ appeals are also disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.16743 of 2021 from which W.A.No.274 of 2022 arises. 2. The petitioner is the Manager of an aided Higher Secondary School (the School) located at Moonniyur in Malappuram District, governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act (the Act) and the Kerala Education Rules (the KER). The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25585 of 2021 were a few students residing within the limits of Moonniyur Grama Panchayat seeking admission to higher secondary courses in the School. Having regard to the educational need in the area, four batches of higher secondary courses have been sanctioned to the School in the academic year 2011-2012. On 20.05.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Government requesting to grant additional batches of higher secondary courses in the School and the said representation was turned down by the Government in terms of Ext.P7 order, stating that the State Level Committee constituted by the Government to assess the educational need in the field of secondary education has not recommended sanctioning of new batches in aided sector. Ext.P7 order was under challenge in the writ petition. The petitioner also sought in the writ petition, directions to the Government to sanction three additional higher secondary batches to the School. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition was that only 200 students could be accommodated in the existing higher secondary batches in the School and since on an average of about 750 students qualify every year for admission to higher secondary courses from the School itself, the remaining students are deprived of the facility to pursue higher secondary courses. It is also the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the Committees at the Regional and State Level constituted by the Government to assess the educational need has recommended additional batches of higher secondary courses to the School. It is also the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the Committees at the Regional and State Level constituted by the Government to assess the educational need has recommended additional batches of higher secondary courses to the School. According to the petitioner, the decision of the Government in declining additional batches of higher secondary courses to the School is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary. 3. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government is that although recommendations have been made by the State Level Committee, having regard to the fact that classes could be conducted during the current academic year only through online mode due to the spread of COVID-19, and having regard to the financial commitment involved in the matter of granting additional batches in the existing schools, the Government have decided in terms of Ext.R2(a) order, not to sanction any additional higher secondary batches in any Government or aided school in the current academic year. It was also stated by the Government in the counter affidavit that having regard to the pass percentage in the SSLC examination in the current academic year, the Government allowed an increase of 20% seats in the existing batches of higher secondary courses, both in the Government sector as also in the aided sector, wherever there is a dearth in the number of seats, in terms of Ext.R2(b) order. As such, according to the Government, there is no illegality in the decision impugned in the writ petition. 4. As mentioned earlier, W.P.(C) No.25585 of 2021 from which W.A.No.271 of 2022 arises, is one filed by a few students residing within the limits of Moonniyur Grama Panchayat, seeking admission to higher secondary courses in the School. The case set out in the said writ petition is that the petitioners have passed SSLC examination from the school during the previous academic year; that they have applied for admission to higher secondary courses, opting the School as their choice, as there are no other Higher Secondary Schools within the same panchayat and that they have not been admitted for higher secondary courses in the School owing to insufficiency of seats. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Government to sanction additional batches of higher secondary courses in Commerce, Humanities and Science, so as to enable the petitioners to get admission in the School itself. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Government to sanction additional batches of higher secondary courses in Commerce, Humanities and Science, so as to enable the petitioners to get admission in the School itself. 5. The learned Single Judge found that Moonniyur is one among the 82 areas in Malappuram District identified by the State Level Committee as areas where there exist educational need in the field of higher secondary education and that the State Level Committee has recommended additional batches in the School. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that the State Level Committee has recommended against increasing the student strength in the existing batches in the best interests of the students. According to the learned Single Judge, in the circumstances, it was inappropriate for the Government to reject the request of the petitioners. The writ petition was consequently allowed, quashing Ext.P7 order and directing the Government to sanction three additional higher secondary batches in the School in Commerce, Humanities and Science. As noted, the respondents are aggrieved by the said decision. 6. As it was found that the data furnished to the Court as regards the number of higher secondary seats as also the number of applicants for higher secondary courses in Malappuram District in the current academic year is not accurate, we directed the learned Government pleader to cause an affidavit to be filed indicating the correct data, and pursuant to the said direction, an affidavit has been filed by the Director of General Education himself, stating that the sanctioned strength of higher secondary courses in the District is only 53,225 and when the student strength was permitted to be increased by 30%, the total seats available were 65091. It is also stated in the affidavit that although the number of applicants for higher secondary courses during the current year in the District are 72,587, all of them have not joined and 5442 seats are remaining vacant at the culmination of the admission process. Going by the said data, the number of students joined for higher secondary courses from the District during the current academic year is 59,649. 7. Heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition. 8. Going by the said data, the number of students joined for higher secondary courses from the District during the current academic year is 59,649. 7. Heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition. 8. The learned Government Pleader submitted that since classes were being conducted for the last almost two years in online mode, the Government took a policy decision not to sanction new or additional batches in the existing Higher Secondary Schools in the academic year 2021-2022, and such a decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner. It was also argued by the learned Government Pleader that sanctioning of additional batches of higher secondary courses in the existing aided schools involves creation of additional teaching posts and the Government cannot be found fault with for having taken note of the financial implications involved while taking such decisions. It was asserted by the learned Government Pleader that the State Level Committee has not recommended sanctioning of additional batches in aided sector during the current academic year and sanctioning of additional batches in a few Higher Secondary Schools will open up a Pandora's box and consideration of identical requests from other schools would result in huge financial commitment to the State. It was also argued by the learned Government Pleader that the impugned judgment is rendered having taken note of the fact that there is acute shortage in the number of seats available in the area when compared to the number of students who passed SSLC examination. According to the learned Government Pleader, the number of students who pass SSLC examination cannot be a relevant factor in the context since all students who pass SSLC examination may not opt to pursue higher secondary courses. The essence of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader therefore, was that the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing the impugned directions. 9. The essence of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader therefore, was that the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing the impugned directions. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even going by the data furnished to the Court by the official respondents, there is acute shortage of higher secondary seats in the District and since the State Level Committee constituted by the Government pursuant to the direction issued by this court in Manager, St.Sebastian's High School, Thrissur v. State of Kerala and Others, 2015 KHC 725 has recommended for sanctioning of additional batches in the School, the decision of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. The learned counsel reinforced this argument pointing out that, but for the orders issued by the Government increasing the student strength by 30%, the Government could not have managed the admission of the current academic year and this practice is one deprecated by the State Level Committee. It was also argued by the learned counsel that had the Government complied with the directions issued by this Court in St.Sebastian's High School (supra), an approach to the Government for sanction of additional batches could have been certainly avoided and it is since the Government has not complied with the directions issued by this Court even after the passing of almost 4 years, the petitioner had to approach this Court for appropriate relief. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that all along, the petitioner was only seeking a direction to the Government to invite application for allotment of higher secondary courses since there is acute shortage of higher secondary seats in the District. According to the learned counsel, in a case of this nature, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with for having directed the Government to straight away grant additional batches to the School. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 11. Before examining the sustainability or otherwise of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to refer to a few relevant facts. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 11. Before examining the sustainability or otherwise of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to refer to a few relevant facts. To start with, even though admissions to higher secondary courses in the State are made through a district-wise centralised allotment process, as students seeking admission may not prefer joining a school which is not in the vicinity of their residential localities, the educational need has to be assessed area-wise, and not district-wise, as is seen to have been done by the Regional and State Level Committees constituted by the Government as directed by this court in St.Sebastian's High School. However, in the absence of any area-wise data, we are in a position to have only a general idea as to the district-wise need. As indicated, the sanctioned strength of higher secondary courses in the District is only 53,225 and the number of applicants during the current academic year was 72,587. True, among the applicants, only 59,649 joined for the course. But that does not mean that only 59,649 aspired to join the course, as we are of the view that locational inconvenience, non-availability of seats in the opted schools, non-availability of the opted subject etc. would have certainly been impediments for the students to join for the course. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge based on the recommendation made by the State Level Committee, the marginal increase in the student strength is not a course that could be adopted to cater to the educational need on a permanent basis, as the size of the classrooms is designed to accommodate only 50 students and addition of students would therefore affect the interests of the students adversely. In other words, while making a general assessment of the educational need, one has to take into account the sanctioned strength and the number of applicants and if we go by the figures of the same, there cannot be any doubt that there is acute shortage of facilities in the District. 12. As far as the writ petition filed by the students is concerned, the materials disclose that it is one caused to have been filed by the Manager of the school to support his case. 12. As far as the writ petition filed by the students is concerned, the materials disclose that it is one caused to have been filed by the Manager of the school to support his case. Be that as it may, as noted, the case set out by the petitioners in the said writ petition is that since sufficient batches of higher secondary courses have not been sanctioned to the School, they are unable to pursue higher secondary courses. There is absolutely no basis for the said case, for the petitioners themselves admit in the writ petition that admission to higher secondary courses in the State is made through a centralised allotment process based on merit, and the system is such that if there are more meritorious students from other schools who have opted the School, they will be preferred over the students of the School. Insofar as the writ petition is seen to have been filed under a misconception that the petitioners would get admission if sufficient number of additional batches are sanctioned to the school, the same is only to be dismissed. 13. Before dealing with the writ petition filed by the Manager, it is necessary to remind ourselves the principles to be kept in mind while dealing with a writ petition of this nature. Every citizen has a right to education under the Constitution and the State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions so as to enable citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge the said obligation either through State owned educational institutions or through private educational institutions recognised and regulated by the State [See Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors, 1992 KHC 898]. If the State is not able to discharge the said obligation for reasons beyond its control through the State owned educational institutions, no doubt, the State is certainly entitled to discharge the said obligation through State recognised and regulated educational institutions including aided institutions. If the State is not able to discharge the said obligation for reasons beyond its control through the State owned educational institutions, no doubt, the State is certainly entitled to discharge the said obligation through State recognised and regulated educational institutions including aided institutions. It is necessary to clarify in this context that the obligation of the State as enshrined in the Constitution is only to take necessary steps to cater to the educational needs of the citizens within the limits of its economic capacity, and it cannot be said that in the matter of evolving a policy and in the matter implementing the policy so evolved, the Government cannot take note of the financial implications involved [See Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 and Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583 ]. Needless to say, what is expected from the Government is that there has to be a fair decision in the matter of discharging the said constitutional obligation. 14. It is seen that this Court has noticed in St.Sebastian's High School, that there is no proper system in place in the State for assessment of educational need in the field of secondary education, and in the absence of a consistent and transparent policy, the allotment process of fresh and additional batches of higher secondary courses is always entangled in litigations. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court issued the following directions to the Government in the matter of consideration of applications for the grant of higher secondary courses: (i) The State Government shall evolve and put in place suitable machinery to determine the educational need in each district in the State in the field of higher secondary education; (ii) The machinery to be set up by the State Government must be one that determines such educational need on an ongoing basis so that the educational need for any academic year is estimated at least a year in advance. (iii) Based on the determination of educational need, the State Government must periodically call for applications from educational agencies in the district concerned and take steps to sanction higher secondary courses in such districts. (iv) The criteria evolved by the State Government for sanctioning higher secondary courses must, inter alia, take into account the socially, educationally and economically backward areas in each district. (iv) The criteria evolved by the State Government for sanctioning higher secondary courses must, inter alia, take into account the socially, educationally and economically backward areas in each district. (v) While considering applications in areas where an educational need has been determined as existing, the State Government shall give preference to those applicants who have been recommended for the grant of higher secondary course in the past, either through Government Orders or through judgments of this Court, but were not sanctioned Higher Secondary Courses only because there was no policy decision then taken by the State Government to sanction Higher Secondary Courses in the State, or on account of the then Government facing financial constraints. Such cases would have to be considered favourably for a grant, subject to the applicant concerned complying with the infrastructural and other requirements mandated by the Kerala Education Act and Rules. (vi) Insofar as I have directed that the State Government shall call for applications, based on the perceived educational need determined in any area, before considering a grant of higher secondary course to any educational agency in the said area, it would be open to the petitioners herein to respond to any call for applications by the Government, as and when made, and the fact that they have preferred applications in the past or that any such application preferred has been rejected in the past shall be of no relevance in a consideration by the State Government of the merit of the fresh applications so preferred by the petitioners (vii) The State Government shall endeavour to complete the above exercise by 31.03.2016 for the next academic year and thereafter, sanction courses based on educational need by 31st March of every succeeding year so that no student is prejudicially affected in the pursuit of his higher secondary education in the State during the academic year 2016-17 or thereafter. It is seen that the Government has accepted the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in St.Sebastian's High School, and issued Ext.P4 order on 05.04.2016 constituting Regional Level Committees covering two Districts and a State Level Committee for assessment of the educational need of the State in the field of higher secondary education. It is seen that the Government has accepted the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in St.Sebastian's High School, and issued Ext.P4 order on 05.04.2016 constituting Regional Level Committees covering two Districts and a State Level Committee for assessment of the educational need of the State in the field of higher secondary education. It is directed in the said order that the Regional Level Committee shall furnish a report to the State Level Committee for the next academic year before 30th September every year and the State Level Committee shall scrutinize the report of the Regional Level Committees and submit a final report to the Government before 31st October every year. It was also stated in the said order that the Government will examine the report of the State Level Committee and take a decision for calling for applications to be set out in the detailed guidelines to be issued later and the entire exercise on the basis of the educational needs shall be completed within 31st March of the succeeding year. We have perused the judgment of this court in St.Sebastian's High School and we are in complete agreement with the said decision. Having regard to the directions issued by this Court in the said case and the directions issued in Ext.P4 order issued by the Government in compliance with the directions of this court, we are also of the view that if the directions issued by this Court in the said case and the directions in Ext.P4 order are complied with, the process of allotment of higher secondary courses in the State would be consistent and transparent conforming to the constitutional requirements. 15. Now, let us deal with the writ petition filed by the Manager. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that in a situation of this nature, where there is educational need and shortage of facilities, if the Government is not taking any step to cater to the need, the right of persons who run educational institutions being one traceable only to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, they can seek at the most only directions to the Government to comply with the guidelines framed in this regard and nothing more. 16. 16. Be that as it may, Ext.P7 order which is impugned in the writ petition is one passed on Ext.P1 application preferred by the petitioner before the Government on 20.05.2019 seeking orders sanctioning additional batches of higher secondary courses in the School. A reading of Ext.P1 application would show that the very premise on which the application is filed is that on an average, 750 students pass SSLC examination from the School itself and the School is able to accommodate only 200 among them in the higher secondary courses. As indicated by us, while dealing with W.A.No.271 of 2022, there is absolutely no basis for the grievance attempted to be ventilated in the representation, for admission to higher secondary courses in the State is made through a district-wise centralised allotment process based on merits and one cannot aspire to get admission in the very same school from which he/she has passed the SSLC examination unless he/she is meritorious enough to get admission in the said school, as the system in place is such that if there are more meritorious applicants for admission to a particular school, they will be preferred over the applicants from the very same school. That apart, in St.Sebastian's High School, this Court deprecated the practice of the Government entertaining individual applications for grant of higher secondary batches, obviously, as it was found that such consideration of individual applications would jeopardise a consistent and transparent process of allotment of fresh or additional batches of higher secondary courses affecting the interests of the students as also rights of others. Again, as noted, pursuant to the direction issued by this court in St.Sebastian's High School, the Government issued Ext.P4 order prescribing the guidelines to be followed in the matter of granting higher secondary courses, and consideration of individual applications in the nature of one preferred by the petitioner would certainly derail the process initiated by the Government in terms of Ext.P4 order. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Government in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of additional batch of higher secondary courses in the school. 17. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Government in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of additional batch of higher secondary courses in the school. 17. As noted, the main contention of the petitioner is that the Government is obliged to grant additional batches of higher secondary courses sought by the petitioner since the State Level Committee constituted by the Government pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in St.Sebastian's High School has recommended for grant of additional batches of higher secondary courses in the School. This argument cannot be accepted, as the Government is not bound by the report of the State Level Committee and the purpose of the report of the State Level Committee is only to enable the Government to take a fair decision in the matter and to make the process of allotment of higher secondary courses in various schools in the aided sector consistent and transparent. Another argument advanced is that since the Government has not invited applications as directed by this Court in St.Sebastian's High School, the petitioner is entitled to seek directions to the Government to sanction additional batches of higher secondary courses in the School to cater to the needs of the students. We do not find any substance in this argument either. As indicated, if the Government does not act upon the report of the State Level Committee and invites applications in compliance with the directions issued by the Government, the petitioner can at the most seek directions to the Government to act upon the report of the State Level Committee and invite applications. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, sanctioning of additional batches in a few Higher Secondary Schools who have made individual representations before the Government and who have approached this Court challenging the decisions rejecting their representations will open up a Pandora's box, and the Government will be in a predicament in dealing with such applications in the light of the directions of this Court in St.Sebastian's High School, and Ext.P4 order is issued in compliance of the directions in the said case. The possibility of identically placed schools approaching this Court for identical reliefs granted to the petitioners cannot also be ruled out. The possibility of identically placed schools approaching this Court for identical reliefs granted to the petitioners cannot also be ruled out. Needless to say, as noted, all these are going to derail the implementation of the direction issued by this Court in St.Sebastian's High School, and the directions contained in Ext.P4 order. 18. Above all, it needs to be noted that in areas where policy decisions involving financial implications are to be taken by the Government, the scope of judicial review is limited and circumscribed. In such cases, the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy, and unless the policy so framed is so capricious or comes into conflict with constitutional or statutory provisions, the Court should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive authority [See M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., (1997)7 SCC 592 ]. 19. However, in the light of our finding that there is acute shortage of facilities in the field of higher secondary education in Malappuram District, we have no hesitation to hold that the Government is obliged to take a decision forthwith as to the manner in which it would cater to the needs of Malappuram District. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ appeals are disposed of directing the Government to take a decision forthwith as to the manner in which it would cater to the needs in the field of higher secondary education in Malappuram District with due regard to the number of applications received during the previous years and the latest recommendations of the State Level Committee. If it is found that arrangements cannot be made otherwise than by granting additional batches in the existing schools in the aided sector, steps shall be initiated forthwith for grant of new and additional batches of higher secondary courses in aided sector as directed by this Court in St.Sebastian's High School, and as accepted by the Government in Ext.P4 order.